In this study, the practical accuracy (PA) of optical facial scanners for facial deformity patients in oral clinic was evaluated. Ten patients with a variety of facial deformities from oral clinical were included in the study. For each patient, a three-dimensional (3D) face model was acquired, via a high-accuracy industrial “line-laser” scanner (Faro), as the reference model and two test models were obtained, via a “stereophotography” (3dMD) and a “structured light” facial scanner (FaceScan) separately. Registration based on the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm was executed to overlap the test models to reference models, and “3D error” as a new measurement indicator calculated by reverse engineering software (Geomagic Studio) was used to evaluate the 3D global and partial (upper, middle, and lower parts of face) PA of each facial scanner. The respective 3D accuracy of stereophotography and structured light facial scanners obtained for facial deformities was 0.58±0.11 mm and 0.57±0.07 mm. The 3D accuracy of different facial partitions was inconsistent; the middle face had the best performance. Although the PA of two facial scanners was lower than their nominal accuracy (NA), they all met the requirement for oral clinic use.
Objective:To compare 2 digital methods to determine median sagittal plane of three-dimensional facial data—the interactive closest point algorithm and Procrustes analysis.Methods:The three-dimensional facial data of the 30 volunteers were got by the Face Scan 3D optical sensor (3D-Shape GmbH, Erlangen, Germany), and then were input to the reverse engineering software Imageware 13.0 (Siemens, Plano, TX) and Geomagic 2012 (Cary, NC). Their mirrored data were acquired and superimposed with the original data by the methods of interactive closest points and Procrustes analysis. The median sagittal planes of the 2 methods were extracted from the original and mirrored facial data respectively, 3 asymmetry indices were measured for comparison. Differences between the facial asymmetry indices of the 2 methods were evaluated using the paired sample t-test.Results:In terms of the 3 asymmetry indices, there were no significant differences between interactive closest points and Procrustes analysis for extracting median sagittal plane from three-dimensional facial data.(t = 0.0.060, P = 0.953 for asymmetry index (AI) 1, t = −0.926, P = 0.362 for AI 2, t = 1.1172, P = 0.0.251 for AI 3).Conclusions:In this evaluation of 30 subjects, the Procrustes analysis and the interactive closest point median-sagittal planes were similar in terms of the 3 asymmetry indices. Thus, Procrustes analysis and interactive closest point can both be used to abstract median sagittal plane from three-dimensional facial data.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.